Wexler for Attributions, yes or no?
2 2

54 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Great to see DW check in. I think this 1958-D may someday be an NGC attributable variety, but they aren’t going to “get out ahead of” the researchers who do these as a specialty. They need to do it first and publish. Then, and only then, should NGC be asked to put it on a slab.

Also, from personal experience, even when published they may not list it - you did say "someday". I was told there has to be collector demand, which is kind of a Catch-22 but it's their playground. ANACS will attribute "discovery coin" if accompanied by documentation from Wexler, Wiles, perhaps others, according to an email I got from them a while back, which I previously thought would be cool, but now I'm not sure if I'd bother. (I've got three or four of them). I don't know if NGC does a "discovery coin" holder or what their rules would be. @KarenHolcomb needs to get it confirmed first of course. I kind of lost enthusiasm for the whole "discovery" thing after basically getting a "who cares" from everybody.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kbbpll said:

Also, from personal experience, even when published they may not list it - you did say "someday". I was told there has to be collector demand, which is kind of a Catch-22 but it's their playground. ANACS will attribute "discovery coin" if accompanied by documentation from Wexler, Wiles, perhaps others, according to an email I got from them a while back, which I previously thought would be cool, but now I'm not sure if I'd bother. (I've got three or four of them). I don't know if NGC does a "discovery coin" holder or what their rules would be. @KarenHolcomb needs to get it confirmed first of course. I kind of lost enthusiasm for the whole "discovery" thing after basically getting a "who cares" from everybody.

Yes, ANACS needs to do things to stand apart. As another example, nobody does VAM’s the way they do, and they’ll do some medals that NGC won’t. Same with ICG. I have an error club medal in which Joseph Wharton’s name was misspelled as “Warton”. NGC wouldn’t slab it, so I sent it to ICG. NGC has the luxury of being an industry leader who doesn’t have to compromise much. They are in a market in which they can set the standards they want.

 

”Discovery” is overrated. You need demand for it. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

”Discovery” is overrated. You need demand for it. 

And perhaps some "influence". For example, there are 34 Barber dime varieties listed here (really, 32 are actual varieties), but only 9 of these show in their population report, from a total of 29 coins. Seemingly not a lot of "demand" for the other 23 varieties listed, but there they are. I don't know the history though, maybe NGC wanted to emulate ANACS, pulled all these from Cherrypickers, listed them, and nobody showed up. Discovery is not overrated, it's just under-recognized. Honestly, my "discoveries" were the only things that got me buying coins again, so we shouldn't denigrate it too much.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kbbpll said:

And perhaps some "influence". For example, there are 34 Barber dime varieties listed here (really, 32 are actual varieties), but only 9 of these show in their population report, from a total of 29 coins. Seemingly not a lot of "demand" for the other 23 varieties listed, but there they are. I don't know the history though, maybe NGC wanted to emulate ANACS, pulled all these from Cherrypickers, listed them, and nobody showed up. Discovery is not overrated, it's just under-recognized. Honestly, my "discoveries" were the only things that got me buying coins again, so we shouldn't denigrate it too much.:)

Stipulated. There is no substitute for “influence”, whether interpersonal or “ginned up” by giving talks at major conventions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, KarenHolcomb said:

Thanks David. So nit only damaged then. While NGC wouldn't attribute it, do you think it'd be worth sending to Variety Vista. 

 

Congrats! All of your looking and studying is paying off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@kbbpll I kinda get the whole discovery thing not being worth it, to an extent. Like my 2019 Nickel DDR-003. Gosh do y'all remember how excited I was? I sure do, am smiling now thinking about it, bug nobody wanted it and nobody really cared except me. Not that you guys didn't cheer me on and lift me up because you did. You allowed me my moment and I am forever grateful for having had it. But at the end of the day and my excitement I thought it would be a special Coin and it's just not. But I still got my name on the website listing and I like that. But with pennies I think it's different, maybe. Everybody wants the Lincoln Cents. So I figure if I had a discovery of a 62 year old Lincoln that might be more special than that new Nickel. See? Or I could be wrong and likely am. Either way I'm sending it to VV next month and see what they say.

Also, yes, if you have a discovery Coin with a letter you can send it to ANACS and get a Discovery Slab, for what all good it would do a person.

@bsshog40 thanks a bunch. I think it will be cool also. And I also think it's gonna be 1958D RPM-024.

@Just Bob Thanks for your kind words. They always mean the world to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KarenHolcomb said:

Also, yes, if you have a discovery Coin with a letter you can send it to ANACS and get a Discovery Slab, for what all good it would do a person.

Well, I suppose if you're collecting and searching for errors for the approval and recognition of this crowd or for the money, I suppose that makes sense... but if you're doing for the fun and for you, it's still awesome!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member: Seasoned Veteran
13 hours ago, kbbpll said:

And perhaps some "influence". For example, there are 34 Barber dime varieties listed here (really, 32 are actual varieties), but only 9 of these show in their population report, from a total of 29 coins.

Don't forget that only those coins achieving a numeric grade get into the Census. Older coins, Barber Dimes being a good example, more often than not have been cleaned at some point or have other problems which relegate them to "Details" grading. Some of the varieties not found in the Census may have been attributed by NGC but simply don't appear in the Census.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DWLange said:

Don't forget that only those coins achieving a numeric grade get into the Census. Older coins, Barber Dimes being a good example, more often than not have been cleaned at some point or have other problems which relegate them to "Details" grading. Some of the varieties not found in the Census may have been attributed by NGC but simply don't appear in the Census.

I'm not understanding this correctly. For a very popular variety like 1942/41 dimes, the NGC census shows 1,947 total, and clicking "D" for "details" shows 937 attributed in various details grades. So "details" coins do, or did, get into the census. However, I have seen at least one example, a 1901-O dime on ebay designated "Type II/II" AU Details, which does not appear in the census. Perhaps there was some inconsistency in the past or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JKK said:

I'm just glad that the oxygen has been able to flow back into the room once more, now that someone has stopped having gas.

Don’t be too certain. It’s far too easy to mix beer and broccoli, with disassterous (see what I did there?) results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Don’t be too certain. It’s far too easy to mix beer and broccoli, with disassterous (see what I did there?) results.

I'll have to take your word for that, and count my blessings that it is so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 12:02 AM, VKurtB said:

NGC is not the place to “try” (in the court case sense of the word) an unlisted anything. They’re not in that game. They respond to varieties that are in published reference works only.

Not True.  David Lange is the decision maker on new varieties for NGC.  You can usually find him at NGC's booth at coin shows.  I was successful, after showing him sufficient evidence*, in having a Variety I discovered added to the VarietiesPlus list, and getting the variety slabbed as the "Discovery Coin"

*Variety characteristics have to be seen on more than one coin to be considered a bonafide die variety.  If you think you have found one, search auction archives (like Heritages) of the same date/mint as your subject coin and try and locate another example with the same oddity.  Also search inventories at coin shows.  You just have to do the work providing indisputable objective evidence.       

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ross J said:

You just have to do the work providing indisputable objective evidence.

But you still have to talk somebody into it, and that "somebody" needs the time or incentive to bother with it (i.e. "collector demand"). People get tired of beating a dead horse. Look at the "Type II/II" 1901-O dime that I mentioned above, in VarietyPlus. The pictured coin is not a Type II obverse nor is it a Type II reverse. Knowledge doesn't bubble up very well in this hobby. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, back to my 1958D....what say y'all about this WRPM-040. Of course you'd think he'd know his own attributed varieties. Some of my other guys, (yes I know, but you guys are my favs) say it is but I wonder about the placement relative to the 5. One guy did make a real nice GIF of mine moving in and melding with the example on Brian's Variety Shop.

Also @DWLange, what would you call the Olive's on the 2012 Dime and the Thorns on the CT Quarter. Idk a whole about DD's, but am quite familiar with MD, lol, I can't see them as MD especially the Quarter because there are no other thorn looking things anywhere to be doubled of.  Thanks Sir. 

1591849205058.jpg

Edited by KarenHolcomb
Cause idek the year of my own Coin
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kbbpll said:

But you still have to talk somebody into it, and that "somebody" needs the time or incentive to bother with it (i.e. "collector demand"). People get tired of beating a dead horse. Look at the "Type II/II" 1901-O dime that I mentioned above, in VarietyPlus. The pictured coin is not a Type II obverse nor is it a Type II reverse. Knowledge doesn't bubble up very well in this hobby.

I hear you but that was not my experience.  The coin in my case was a Saint Gauden's Double Eagle variety, for which there is next to no real collector demand to this point (I may be the only insufficiently_thoughtful_person interested in these).  As to talking somebody into it, I agree the found variety does have to reach some threshold of visual interest, and that is subjective on the part of different people.  If you found the 101st new re-punched mint mark, it may be an uphill climb.  Agree somewhat that knowledge can grow slowly in the hobby and mistakes that make it into published resources may take some time to be corrected.  Also agree that there are "gate-keepers" who may resist unsolicited appeals, but not all are dead horses.  Don't beat them...try to convince them.  My sense of the VarietyPlus listings are that NGC wants to be a key resource for collectors interested in varieties and If you have found something interesting they will not unfairly resist.  Contrast that with PCGS who is way more restrictive about which varieties they will attribute on their slabs.  I tried to have a Breen variety (he's been dead 30 years) acknowledged on a slab, they implied they would consider it, and then took my money and wouldn't do it.  I suspect I would have gotten a different result if I were a dealer.  All I am saying is don't write off NGC.  Go to a show and talk to Dave Lange.  He will tell you why or why not things get listed.  He is respected in the hobby, and from my perspective, deserves that respect.  Be courteous, not aggressive.  Ask questions, don't make demands, and I'm sure you'll get better results.                

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ross J said:

 (I may be the only insufficiently_thoughtful_person interested in these).

OK, apparently the NGC "syntax police" thought me calling myself an  i d i o t  was inappropriate, replacing it with "insufficiently thoughtful person", totally ruining my punchline!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2020 at 7:34 AM, Ross J said:

I hear you but that was not my experience.  The coin in my case was a Saint Gauden's Double Eagle variety, for which there is next to no real collector demand to this point (I may be the only insufficiently_thoughtful_person interested in these).  As to talking somebody into it, I agree the found variety does have to reach some threshold of visual interest, and that is subjective on the part of different people.  If you found the 101st new re-punched mint mark, it may be an uphill climb.  Agree somewhat that knowledge can grow slowly in the hobby and mistakes that make it into published resources may take some time to be corrected.  Also agree that there are "gate-keepers" who may resist unsolicited appeals, but not all are dead horses.  Don't beat them...try to convince them.  My sense of the VarietyPlus listings are that NGC wants to be a key resource for collectors interested in varieties and If you have found something interesting they will not unfairly resist.  Contrast that with PCGS who is way more restrictive about which varieties they will attribute on their slabs.  I tried to have a Breen variety (he's been dead 30 years) acknowledged on a slab, they implied they would consider it, and then took my money and wouldn't do it.  I suspect I would have gotten a different result if I were a dealer.  All I am saying is don't write off NGC.  Go to a show and talk to Dave Lange.  He will tell you why or why not things get listed.  He is respected in the hobby, and from my perspective, deserves that respect.  Be courteous, not aggressive.  Ask questions, don't make demands, and I'm sure you'll get better results.                

I understand and agree with everything you say, but to me it's a roll of the dice. Double Eagles get people's attention. In my case, it's documentation of a third Barber dime reverse type (1900-1901), and two new transition varieties resulting from that. Well, the two original reverse types have been known since 1980 (McCloskey, "thin" and "thick" ribbons), and published in 1991 by Lawrence, including some of the transition varieties of those two types in San Francisco. "Series specialists", as NGC calls them, have been aware of these since then, but it's never really bubbled up, and even the stuff known since 1991 is inaccurate on various sites, including NGC. With the third reverse, there are now transition anomalies from 1899 through 1905. At the time, I kind of thought that it was a big deal. How many new types pop up after 120 years? I contacted Coin World, no interest. I contacted Numismatist (twice), no response at all. James Wiles was very enthusiastic (and quite nice), but they've decided to put these things in the camp of the various "specialty clubs", which I completely understand. Wiles cc'd Bill Fivaz, and then it was this close to getting a section in the new edition of Cherry Pickers. Then it was yanked. Then it sounded like it was back in, more hours from me (preparing images, etc), then that turned out to be miscommunication. After that, you kind of give up.

I know I sound like I'm complaining. It seems to be just the way it goes. I'm not interested in fame or fortune. It's difficult, once you've really dug into something, to see inaccurate information, and not be able to do anything about it. I'm sure this is not an uncommon experience among people with a lot more knowledge than I have (Roger comes to mind).

Karen, is there a link to this WRPM-040? I can't find it anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kbbpll said:

I know I sound like I'm complaining. It seems to be just the way it goes. I'm not interested in fame or fortune. It's difficult, once you've really dug into something, to see inaccurate information, and not be able to do anything about it. I'm sure this is not an uncommon experience among people with a lot more knowledge than I have (Roger comes to mind).

I hear you, and agree the process can be very frustrating.  Though it is true people like Double Eagles, when it comes to varieties it can be a very different story.  I've gotten quite used to that "deer in the headlights" look when I bring it up.

Incidentally, I too have working with Bill Fivaz on the new Cherrypicker's guide, and I believe I have had some success (based on public comments made at ANA in Atlanta), but my last few emails trying to get a finalized list of what will be added have gone unanswered.  Could just be that they are hunkered down or backed up from COVID.

Have you considered doing a video?  Youtube is a great outlet for short limited coin themed videos.  Just keep doing what you're doing here.  Don't give up!  Telling others about it half the fun.

One more suggestion.  Write up an article (keeping it to 500 words), maybe about the frustrations you've described or some other aspect of the process and your progress.  Make your points clearly and entertainingly (if possible), and submit it to Bill Gibbs as a "Guest Commentary" to Coin World.  He's printed quite a few of mine, and I think new voices in that space always have a good shot at publication.  Even if it doesn't advance your specific agenda, it may open up some channels for further discussion.

A more serious article that gets "into the weeds" of your topic you can send to club journals.  They are always looking for things to print.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2